Understand which carbon projects and credits you can stand behind.
A structured, AI-assisted and expert-reviewed integrity assessment designed to identify material red flags, evidence gaps and critical assumptions before consequential carbon-market decisions.
Built around integrity. Focused on stronger evidence and meaningful climate impact.
Built on JSC's project-level Carbon Integrity Assessment Framework and currently being advanced in collaboration with COMSU.
How defensible are the carbon credits associated with this project?
- Additionality
- Carbon accounting
- Permanence
- MRV & traceability
- Methodology alignment
- Claims & double counting
- AI-assisted evidence workflow
- Expert-reviewed conclusions
Red flags, evidence gaps and next questions — structured for project, credit, transaction and portfolio decisions.
When registry status or a project summary is not enough
The CIR is designed for moments when registry status, verification or a project summary is not enough to support the decision at hand.
Before buying or using credits
Understand integrity, accounting, MRV and claims exposure before procurement, retirement or corporate use.
Before offering or commercializing credits
Identify buyer questions, evidence gaps and technical issues that may affect transaction confidence.
Before investing in or prioritizing an asset
Assess material risks and determine whether deeper diligence is justified before allocating capital or resources.
Before deeper diligence or internal approval
Structure the technical questions, evidence requests and decision implications that deserve further investigation.
What the CIR assesses
The exact scope is tailored to the project type, evidence package, crediting context and decision being made.
Additionality
Non-BAU case, common practice, regulation, incentives, barriers and the role of carbon finance.
Baseline & quantification
Baseline logic, parameter choices, conservative assumptions and emission-reduction calculations.
Over-crediting exposure
Potential sources of excess issuance, direction of effect, sensitivity and materiality.
Permanence & durability
Reversal, discontinuation, operational continuity and durability where relevant to the activity.
MRV & traceability
Monitoring architecture, data quality, source hierarchy, reproducibility and audit trail.
Methodology & eligibility
Applicability, methodological alignment, historical rule changes and credit eligibility questions.
Double counting & claims
Crediting periods, overlapping mechanisms, issuance boundaries and claim defensibility.
Safeguards & reputation
Material environmental, social, governance or reputational issues within the agreed scope.
What is documented and traceable?
Would the issue increase or reduce credited outcomes?
Could the effect change the integrity view?
What does the finding mean for the decision at hand?
How the CIR works
A controlled evidence workflow combines analytical acceleration with expert technical judgement.
- Step 1
Define the decision and scope
Confirm the project, credits, monitoring periods, intended decision and required depth.
- Step 2
Control the evidence package
Organize project documents, methodology, MR/VR, registry records and relevant calculations.
- Step 3
AI-assisted evidence analysis
Accelerate document inventory, structured extraction, comparison and information-gap identification.
- Step 4
Expert review & sensitivity
Interpret evidence, distinguish gaps from risks and quantify material assumptions where required.
- Step 5
Red Flag Report & next steps
Deliver decision-relevant findings, mitigating evidence, priority questions and recommended follow-up.
AI accelerates the workflow. Expert judgement controls the assessment.
The CIR does not allow automated extraction or scoring to substitute for interpretation, materiality judgement or final conclusions.
Organize and compare evidence
Document inventory, structured extraction, evidence comparison and gap identification.
Interpret risk and materiality
Technical judgement, sensitivity design, risk synthesis and final conclusions.
Act on the findings
Proceed, pause, request evidence, investigate further or commission deeper diligence.
Evidence organized for the decision — not another document summary.
A standard CIR engagement is designed to separate what the evidence supports, what remains unresolved and what may materially affect credit defensibility.
Project & Evidence Snapshot
Controlled view of project scope, methodology, periods and principal documentation.
Red Flag Register
Potential issues, evidence basis, implications, priority and suggested follow-up.
Supporting & Mitigating Evidence
Factors that support or reduce the significance of apparent concerns.
Information-Gap Request
Prioritized evidence capable of resolving or materially changing the view.
Expert Sensitivity Analysis
Targeted quantification where assumptions may materially affect credited reductions.
Decision-Oriented Summary
Clear findings, residual uncertainty and recommended next analytical steps.
Core initial result: a structured Carbon Credit Red Flag Report. Where the decision requires greater depth, the engagement can expand into a Full Integrity & Risk Assessment. The exact format and depth are tailored to the project, evidence package and decision context.
From screening to deeper assessment
Start with material red flags. Go deeper only where the decision and evidence justify it.
Built on JSC's Carbon Integrity Assessment Framework
The CIR evolved from project-level Red Flag and integrity assessment work on operating landfill-methane projects and was subsequently tested against separate project cases. The framework distinguishes evidence gaps, methodology questions, potential red flags and material integrity risks instead of treating every issue as equivalent.
Evidence + direction + materiality + decision relevance.
Advancing the CIR with COMSU
The Carbon Integrity Report is currently being advanced in collaboration with COMSU, combining JSC's carbon integrity methodology and technical expertise with COMSU's ESG, sustainability and market-facing advisory capabilities.
The collaboration supports continued product development, application and market deployment while preserving the technical integrity of the underlying assessment framework.
Carbon integrity methodology, project-level assessment, expert review and technical conclusions.
Complementary ESG, sustainability and market-facing advisory capabilities.
Clear product boundaries
- an integrity assessment
- a structured Red Flag screen
- an evidence and gap review
- AI-assisted and expert-reviewed
- a decision-support tool
- validation or verification
- certification
- a public carbon rating
- legal or financial advice
- an investment recommendation
- a guarantee of credit quality
Where the CIR fits
Does successful verification eliminate integrity risk?
No. Verification is essential, but buyers and investors may still need to assess broader questions such as project-specific additionality, conservative assumptions, evidence gaps and claims exposure.
What information is normally reviewed?
Depending on scope: project documents, methodology, monitoring and verification reports, registry information, calculations, supporting studies and decision-specific evidence.
Can the CIR support portfolios?
Yes. The CIR is project-level, while JSC's Carbon Portfolio Assessment & Prioritization service — where screening is typically the first stage — can compare multiple assets and identify which projects merit a CIR or deeper diligence.
Tell us what you are evaluating.
Share the project, credits, portfolio or decision context. JSC will review the information and confirm whether a CIR, Red Flag Report or deeper assessment is the appropriate next step.